4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Tarxien (Malta).
5.  Before 1973 the applicant bought a house in Malta, which he had planned to use as a home for himself and his family. In order to purchase this building, he had incurred debts. Subsequently, in 1973 he acquired by donation full ownership of another house, in Paola. The applicant alleged that he then changed his plans and wanted to sell the former house in order to pay off his debts and to move into the house in Paola with his family.
6.  On 31 March 1984 the house in Paola was seized by the Government under a requisition order issued by the Director of Social Housing under the Housing Act (Chapter 125 of the Laws of Malta).
7.  On 23 August 1984 the applicant was informed that possession of the house in Paola had been given to a certain Mr G.
8.  In September 1984 the applicant introduced a judicial protest against the relevant government department. He alleged that the issuing of the requisition order and the allocation of his property to a third party was causing him hardship. In a judicial letter of 8 November 1984, the Director of Social Housing asked the applicant, in his capacity as owner of the house in Paola, to recognise Mr. G. as the tenant of the premises (section 8 of the Housing Act).
9.  According to the Housing Act, the applicant was entitled to receive a requisition rent for the use of his property. However the applicant alleged that no rent had ever been fixed or offered to him and since the date of the requisition he had received no compensation.
10.  The applicant subsequently introduced a claim before the Civil Court (First Hall). He alleged that the requisition order and the allocation of his property to a third party was in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1, as incorporated into Maltese law by Act XIV of 1987 (European Convention Act). The applicant has not produced the documents pertaining to these proceedings and has not informed the Court about their outcome.
11.  On 12 October 1990, while the first proceedings were still pending, the applicant introduced a second claim before the Civil Court (First Hall), alleging a breach of his right to the enjoyment of his property. He requested the Civil Court to issue the orders and directions needed to redress the violation of his fundamental rights, including, if necessary, a declaration that the relevant sections of the Housing Act had been abrogated by the European Convention Act.
12.  In a judgment of 30 October 1995, the Civil Court declared the applicant's claim incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the European Convention Act, as the facts complained of had occurred before its entry into force on 30 April 1987. The requisition had been effected in accordance with the law which was in force at the time, and no violation of the applicant's fundamental rights could be established.
13.  The applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court.
14.  In a judgment of 28 February 2005, the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's claim.
15.  It considered that the situation complained of was a continuing one and the applicant was accordingly affected by it after 30 April 1987. Therefore, the facts of the case fell within the competence of the domestic courts.
16.  As to the merits of the applicant's claim, the Constitutional Court noted that the only evidence produced by the applicant was a report of his architect, which stated that the rental value of the house was 120 Maltese Liras (MLT) (approximately 288 euros (EUR)) per year at the time of the requisition, and MLT 250 (approximately EUR 600) per year at the date of the report (28 October 1993). However, when the defendant declared that the rental value as fixed by the Land Valuation Officer was MLT 23 (approximately EUR 55) per year, the applicant did not produce any new evidence in rebuttal. According to the Constitutional Court, this constituted a manifest fault on the applicant's part. Furthermore, he never initiated proceedings before the Rent Regulation Board for the determination of a fair rent for his house.
17.  The Constitutional Court also noted that in the implementation of policies of a socio-economic nature the margin of appreciation of the State was very wide. It quoted the case of Connie Zammit v. Malta (no. 16756/90, Commission's report of 12 January 1991) and an excerpt from van Dijk's and van Hoof's book “Theory and Practice of the European Convention” concerning the interpretation of the notion of “general interest”. In the light of the above, the Constitutional Court held that the applicant had proved neither the hardship he alleged nor a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1.